ATi (or: AMD) and nVidia give a heck of a lot more priority to getting the best performance and stability out of DirectX, because simply that's where 95% of the game-market is. It's basicly rocksolid while OpenGL remains flackey at best.

The Java2D-team knows everything about it. Only the very very last (or near future) drivers are usable for the OpenGL-pipeline of Java2D. They still haven't ditched their DirectX implementation, for a reason!

So much for 'it simply doesn't make sense' and 'it adds not value while reducing portability'

Hi, appreciate more people! Σ ♥ = ¾Learn how to award medals... and work your way up the social rankings!

Don't see your problem here. You only have to download the latest drivers and have a modern graphics card to have the same stability that directx offers. Java2d is another thing and it makes sense for them to support both for computers with old gcs and buggy opengl drivers. People who require hardware acceleration for visualization and games usualy have a good gc and they still have to do a lot of low level tweaking and fixing to get the best out of it no mater what api they use.

You don't wanna know how many people with great graphics-cards have outdated drivers.

And if you aim at the casual gamemarket - where eyecandy is a musthave - the situation is much worse.

Even worse: some vendors don't offer GC driver updates even for new notebooks and the preinstalled versions are way behind the actual ones from ATI/nVidia for the PC-versions. Therefore I doesn't matter, whether XP/Vista allows OpenGL driver from the hardware vendors to be installed, if there are none or no new ones available..

You don't wanna know how many people with great graphics-cards have outdated drivers.

Theres a very easy solution for that, when you install the game also install the updated drivers for the most common manufactors. Or warn the inexperienced user to install new drivers and point him some links.

Having a directx binding won't change anything as outdated directx drivers will cause the same problems you describe.

Still i would like to see someone trying a directx binding for java just to prove it's not realy worth the trouble right now with current OpenGL apis, but don't expect sun to support it.

But thats an atipical problem. It only shows that there are bad notebook manufacters. You don't have to fix every problem in every computer on this planet and that certainly wont magicaly happen with directx.

2) The problem isn't the same with DirectX drivers because they tend to be rocksolid, even older versions.

You know there are realy three versions we have to distinguish here. Directx 7 for very old cards. Directx 8.1 for pre-sahders graphics cards. And finnaly directx9+ drivers. I know that HL2 supports these three versions as separate drivers. So if you wanted maximum compatibility then you would realy need three bindings and not just one. Have fun with directx.

I read things like this and I know Java doesn't support DirectX directly. Is that good for me and for Java? Do I and Java miss out on something important while busy praying at the altar of portability? I'm not talking about drawing a few lines in pedagogical games for todlers here. I'm talking about gaming at the bleeding edge of the possible like those guys interviewed are producing.

Quote

(Do you remember his wonderful troll about C++/Java)

I was being serious but somehow managed to piss off everybody especially the moderators which probably wasn't such a good idea. Shit happens but njema problema and I still think it's an interesting topic worth discussing, I just do it elsewhere. And not that it matters but I'm a she.

My applications are in Bioinformatics and Molecular Dynamics Simulations so I'll be fine with OpenGL but I think game-style graphics could be a competitive advantage also in modelling applications. That's why I'm investigating this and I would prefer to stick with Java for the simple reason that I like it. Not a very professional attitude I admit.

I read things like this and I know Java doesn't support DirectX directly. Is that good for me and for Java? Do I and Java miss out on something important while busy praying at the altar of portability? I'm not talking about drawing a few lines in pedagogical games for todlers here. I'm talking about gaming at the bleeding edge of the possible like those guys interviewed are producing.

Why would anyone choose to develop games using Java if it's not because of the portability (or some degree of it) the platform provides? Wouldn't be better, cheaper and easier to just stay with C++ or jump to C#, since MS is pushing it and there wouldn't be much trouble since the tools would be practically the same (Visual Studio)?

Even if a minority would choose Java even in non-portable code, would it be worth spending time and money to produce a "binding" for it? Or would be better to just wait that the afflicted minority develop one for themselves?

I don't think the benefits justify the costs of such thing. In the other hand OpenGL makes sense, not only for games, but for other applications as well.

Why would anyone choose to develop games using Java if it's not because of the portability (or some degree of it) the platform provides? Wouldn't be better, cheaper and easier to just stay with C++ or jump to C#, since MS is pushing it and there wouldn't be much trouble since the tools would be practically the same (Visual Studio)?

uh,

maybe because java is a nice language to code in, and it is as cheap as can be (free), and i dont feel the need to jump to whatever microsoft is pushing, and i didnt come from c++ so i cant just stay there.

If you're in MD, no kidding openGL is your choice. All the major programs are unix based (or at least many/most people use them on unix). The popular visualization tools use opengl. Why do you care about directx??

Actually, isn't this an example why lack of interoperability is bad? Opengl lets the researchers use whatever system they want and have invested their time in, while directx forces them to windows. And many use unix. You can't argue anything about market penetration here.

Who cares!!! Will someone just please get on the case and develop a DX binding for LWJGL and then everybody's happy. End of story.

The Linux and Mac users that won't be able to run the games because they require Direct X won't be happy ... this sort of thing needs to be done one level removed from Direct X - like Java 3d. Oh, wait, Java 3D is already done. I guess we are all happy

If you're in MD, no kidding openGL is your choice. All the major programs are unix based (or at least many/most people use them on unix). The popular visualization tools use opengl. Why do you care about directx??

Actually, isn't this an example why lack of interoperability is bad? Opengl lets the researchers use whatever system they want and have invested their time in, while directx forces them to windows. And many use unix. You can't argue anything about market penetration here.

You're thinking like an engineer. Just because everybody have been using Fortran and OpenGL for ages doesn't mean that it's going to stay like that forever. I see opportunity in technology shifts. Just because 60 years old Mr. Tired Professor holds on to his beloved old tools like his life depended on them doesn't mean 25 years old Ms. Eager Student will. She's got a totally different outlook. And she's probably going to work somewhere in industry rather than in academia. It's a totally different environment.

uj, could you please stop talking about OpenGL like it's a dead API or something? Just because you read about DX10's (really exciting) features so many months before being able to use them, doesn't mean that OpenGL is so far behind, or that it won't be able to support a couple of new hardware features. Are you aware that DX10 features won't be accessible on pre-Vista Windows? Are you aware of the new object model and GL3.0? Just give me a new driver with a new extension and I'll be able to use geometry shaders on WinXP/Linux/whatever right now.

Btw, +1 from me for a DX binding. There's nothing wrong with writing a Java app that targets the windows platform exclusively. The same goes for other platforms.

uj, could you please stop talking about OpenGL like it's a dead API or something?

Both OpenGL and DirectX are alive and I've not argued that one is better than the other. It's a question of choise.

What I find amazing is that there still exists an almost religious sentiment that Java is more than just a programming language. It's a beacon in the darkness of non-portability and it's a sword to fight evil forces (read Microsoft). So it follows that Java just cannot support DirectX. I just don't share this idea.

Precisely. Write the DX binding for LWJGL, then develop a scenegraph on top of DX and OpenGL, call it the Monkey Engine or something, and job done. Like I said, everyone's happy.Cas

I think you are the only person here who ever done a binding and are experienced. I doubt anyone else would be able to do it right and in less time than you could. Why don't you try it?

A DirectX binding would have an advantage. It would not be first that MS would try to criple the competition by doing some mumbo-jambo with windows. So a DX binding would sort of shield Java developers fears and give more confidence.

uj, could you please stop talking about OpenGL like it's a dead API or something?

Both OpenGL and DirectX are alive and I've not argued that one is better than the other. It's a question of choise.What I find amazing is that there still exists an almost religious sentiment that Java is more than just a programming language. It's a beacon in the darkness of non-portability and it's a sword to fight evil forces (read Microsoft). So it follows that Java just cannot support DirectX. I just don't share this idea.

For Gods sake you contradict yourself in every post. If you want to be devils advocate at least do it in an inteligent way.

One year ago I wanted to write a Direct3D-Binding for Java. But I stopped, because I didn't had an idea how to free native resources in a determenistic way (finalizers are undeterministic) when an object isn't referenced anymore. So if you have an idea, tell me please ...

By the way: It would be great, if Sony uses Java as a reactiion to Microsoft's XNA stuff on their PS3. Maybe that will be possible, when Java is completely open-source ...

Precisely. Write the DX binding for LWJGL, then develop a scenegraph on top of DX and OpenGL, call it the Monkey Engine or something, and job done. Like I said, everyone's happy.Cas

I think you are the only person here who ever done a binding and are experienced. I doubt anyone else would be able to do it right and in less time than you could. Why don't you try it?

Because my wife's just left me and I don't really give a shit any more about anything much Even if I did... I'm happy with what I've got. Elias might well be up for it though, he's trying to make a proper business out of Oddlabs.

One year ago I wanted to write a Direct3D-Binding for Java. But I stopped, because I didn't had an idea how to free native resources in a determenistic way (finalizers are undeterministic) when an object isn't referenced anymore. So if you have an idea, tell me please ...

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org